Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole

[chi pan]

You may find it ridiculous, but there is a vast amount of evidence, mountains infact. As to your god or anyone else's: zip, nada, NOTHING.

i've looked at evidence why do you think i'm on this page if i don't look at both sides? there's not a vast amount of evidence there's almost no evidence for the big bang theory it's just a theory that can't possibly be proven cuz it happened "billions of years ago" it can't be recreated or traced.

My advice to you, is to go and learn what those theories really say and not what your pastor says about them. This sentence shows that you know next to nothing about them. Study, use your brain, I promise it won't hurt.

quotes from stephen hawking he said that "it seams highly unlikely but if done enough times you're bound to get a good result." it is random chance.

Nope, it isn't ignored, science is a self correcting process. Its a honorable thing to be able to admit that some mistakes were made. And the bible doesn't only has innecuracies, the whole story is immoral, and the god in the bible is immoral. How do I know this? I would never put my kids in the basement forever for any finite wrong doing.

actually there was a big story in the media about the discovery but when it was discovered to be a hoax most media outlets ignored it. and that's a bad metaphore b/c god doesn't leave us alone, he guides us when we ask for help.

No, YOU should learn about it, as you clearly are just regurgitating nonsense learned in religious environmnents. Give yourself some credit and use your brain, Its just as functional as other people's brains. Besides, carbon dating isn't the only dating method, and guess what, they all point to the same conclusions.

explination: carbon dating measures the amount of carbon 14 atoms in the organic substance. carbon 14 is a radioactive unstable iscotope of carbon that has a specific half life that i don't remember off hand. the carbon 14 atoms of an organic substance is the same as that of the atmosphere when it's alive b/c it's constantly replenishing it's supply, but when it dies, it stops getting new carbon 14 and what's left slowly decays. calculating the half life you can easily calculate how long it's been dead. the only problem is it's based on the assumption that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere is the same now then it was then but this is not constant. it changes gradually as you can see on the news about the complaint of carbon emmissions into the atmosphere. this means the older the substance is the more inaccurate the measurment is and when it gets to thousands of years it can easilly be 10 times what it really is. don't believe me? look it up! i look at other things too which is why i'm here.

EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! [/morbo]

according to the theory all lifeforms today evolved from the simplist organisms so at some point they had to change species but there's no proof of that. that's the point not that literally a squirl becomes a cat.

Last time I checked the earth is a sphere (a little flattened in the poles OFC), not a circle. A circle is a two dimensional figure. And please give us the evidence for your god, we have been waiting for it. SCIENCE, it works bitches

---

---

actually the hebrew word most directly describes a sphere but back then they didn't differentiate between 2 dimentional and three dimentinoal shapes so it translated to circle. obviously the earth isn't 2 dimentional i thought i didn't have to explain that. still one up for the bible and if you read further into the passage it talks about how he expands the heavens (refering to the universe in case i have to dumb that up too) which is something only recently discovered. i'm not gonna quote it cuz i'm letting you look for it youself it's in the same verse so you know where to look.

---

i hear ppl saying "they assume it's the word of god but it's not." that right there is assuming it's not the word of god.

First you have to provide some evidence that your god ( or, why quibble, ANY god ) exists. Then you can move on to the notion that he wrote a terribly flawed book.

Your move, sonny.

the explination is simple. you don't see a building and think that building occured by a chain of complex random acts of nature putting it together piece by piece for millions of years, you assume it was build by a builder, well at least one. why should it be any different for life forms so complex we don't even fully understand them yet alone could create one on purpose. things we don't understand exactly how they work were put together by noone? you can't throw a puzzel at a wall a billion times and expect one of those times it will fall assempled. and no joke that would be way more likely than how evolutionists explain it happened and they know it it's deffinition insanity- "doing the same thing over and over expecting different results."